Best not to pay too much attention to the hard core environmentalists or to those who claim definitively that it is not happening. I disagree that skeptics are labelled in that way. I definitely count myself as a skeptic in the sense that it does not appear to me that the case has been proven, but given the potential consequences I think that it is wise to fund further research, explore alternative energy sources, and at least consider the cost/benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

One concern I have is the activities of certain devloping nations with regards to emissions. Do we really think that China and India and some other rapidly industrializing countries are going to conform and honestly report emissions? I mean, even if the US were to completely eliminate all carbon emissions, isn't the likelyhood that this is going to do little good since China has such a massive and growing industrial footprint? It just seems futile for us to wreck our own economy in many regards if China is going to more than make up for any benefits that we would contribute.

Best not to pay too much attention to the hard core environmentalists or to those who claim definitively that it is not happening. I disagree that skeptics are labelled in that way. I definitely count myself as a skeptic in the sense that it does not appear to me that the case has been proven, but given the potential consequences I think that it is wise to fund further research, explore alternative energy sources, and at least consider the cost/benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

One concern I have is the activities of certain devloping nations with regards to emissions. Do we really think that China and India and some other rapidly industrializing countries are going to conform and honestly report emissions? I mean, even if the US were to completely eliminate all carbon emissions, isn't the likelyhood that this is going to do little good since China has such a massive and growing industrial footprint? It just seems futile for us to wreck our own economy in many regards if China is going to more than make up for any benefits that we would contribute.

That is definitely a problem without an easy answer, but I think it is important not to let it get in the way of taking action appropriate to a problem. For example, as a simple thought experiment - if it were clearly proven that the greenhouse gas emissions were causing significant global warning - would we still think it OK to continue at current emission levels just because other countries were not making an effort to reduce theirs?

This is why you and half the members of the House Science Committee shouldn't be taken seriously with regard to any important science issues. This is quite possibly the dumbest comparison I have heard on this issue. If these elected representatives and their similarly ignorant constituents want a seat at the adult table, they need to start demonstrating they actually care to learn about the science about which they wish to discuss--and not from sources like godmadebananastofitperfectlyinahumanhand.com or globalclimatechangeisahoaxbecausecoalisprofitable.com.

It wasn't a serious comparison. Thanks for the personal attack.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

That is definitely a problem without an easy answer, but I think it is important not to let it get in the way of taking action appropriate to a problem. For example, as a simple thought experiment - if it were clearly proven that the greenhouse gas emissions were causing significant global warning - would we still think it OK to continue at current emission levels just because other countries were not making an effort to reduce theirs?

I think this is one of the major issues here. There is no "clear proof" that we can look to and make this decision. If there were "clear proof" I would definitely agree that we should be doing everything in our power to correct the problem. Honestly though, I would be interested in technological research to somehow reduce the current atmospheric levels of CO2 rather than just limiting our output. Limiting our output seems like the insanity of baseline budgeting where a "cut" is a reduction in the rate of spending increase and not actually a cut at all. As to the feasibility of reducing atmospheric CO2, I really have no idea. I would also worry though that steps this drastic could go to far and the limited rise in temperatures we have seen thus far might be due to some mechanism the planet has that we would then be undermining potentially causing us to create a swing in the other direction.

Suffice to say, I do agree that more research is required. I don't support efforts at this time that have detrimental effects on our economy though as the "clear proof" just isn't there to justify such drastic action.